All notes for Subtopic 1302.04000 – Bar To
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2905M |
Consolidated Irrigation District
1302.04000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; Bar To
It may be proper to extend the certification bar and dismiss a decertification petition altogether based on proven unfair practices in cases involving initial contract negotiations. (St. HOPE Public Schools (2024) PERB Order No. Ad-511, pp. 8, 10, fn. 11 (St. HOPE).) As we outlined in St. HOPE, supra, there are normally three potential bases for dismissal if a charging party has prevailed in its blocking charges in whole or in part, as OE3 did here: (1) the proven conduct materially tainted solicitation of employee support or employees’ decision to sign the petition, such that there is a legitimate question whether the petition would have reached the requisite threshold absent unfair practices; (2) the conduct occurred while an emerging union was negotiating for a first contract after recognition, certification, or successorship, thereby warranting retroactive extension of the certification or recognition bar; or (3) the conduct has a continuing prospective tendency to harm employee free choice that PERB’s remedies are unlikely to fully address, even in conjunction with the passage of time and any other relevant factors. (Id. at pp. 10-11.) Here, the ALJ ordered extension of the certification bar to at least 12 months from the commencement of good faith bargaining, subject to extension if the District is found to have engaged in additional unfair practices. The Board concurred with this remedy.
The Board also recognized that the District’s illegal conduct occurred while OE3 was negotiating for a first contract. These circumstances called for heightened protection stemming from the Board’s experiential understanding that “it is particularly difficult to restore a newly recognized or certified union’s standing with its members after early unlawful conduct” and thus “absent unusual circumstances it is proper to extend the recognition bar or certification bar and dismiss the petition altogether based on proven unfair practices during first contract negotiations.” (St. HOPE, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-511, pp. 10, fn. 11 & 10-12; see Gompers Preparatory Academy (2020) PERB Order No. Ad-481, pp. 5-6 & cases cited therein [“an employer’s bad faith bargaining conduct during negotiations for an initial contract typically has a more deleterious effect on employee support for the nascent union than it would in a well-established collective bargaining relationship because such conduct sends the message that ‘employees [will] see no change in their working lives from having a collective-bargaining representative’”]; Children of Promise Preparatory Academy (2015) PERB Order No. Ad-428, adopting administrative determination at pp. 19-20; Central Basin Municipal Water District (2021) PERB Order No. Ad-486-M, p. 12, fn. 6.) Dismissal of the decertification petition would accordingly be appropriate. However, in light of the particular procedural posture of this case, viz., the Group of Employees that filed the decertification petition did not appear in this matter, the Board not order dismissal herein but noted that any party could file a motion with OGC to dismiss the decertification petition in Case No. SA-DP-284-M. (pp. 33-35.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 21 | 06/24/24 |
| A511E |
St. HOPE Public Schools
1302.04000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; Bar To
EERA requires PERB to dismiss a representation petition when “[t]he public school employer has, within the previous 12 months, lawfully recognized an employee organization other than the petitioner as the exclusive representative of any employees included in the unit described in the petition.” (EERA, § 3544.7, subd. (b)(2).) This 12-month period is commonly known as the “certification bar” or the “recognition bar.” Its purpose is to give the new exclusive representative “breathing room” to bargain a first contract. (Gompers Preparatory Academy (2020) PERB Order No. Ad-481, p. 7, fn. 5 (Gompers).) PERB commonly extends the bar as a remedy for unlawful conduct impacting the union’s strength and/or ability to bargain a contract. (See, e.g., Alliance Judy Ivey Burton Technology Academy High School et al. (2022) PERB Decision No. 2809, p. 30.) (p. 4, fn. 6.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 150 | 03/11/24 |
| 2506M |
City of Madera
1302.04000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; Bar To
MMBA employer’s local rules may, but need not, establish a reasonable contract bar that is consistent with the MMBA. Furthermore, irrespective of whether an MMBA employer’s local rules establish a contract bar, the rules may, but need not, establish reasonable limits on when a party may file a decertification petition even in the absence of an effective labor agreement. more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 98 | 12/13/16 |
| 2771M |
City of Long Beach
1302.04000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; Bar To
PERB Regulation 61380, subdivision (c), which applies to MMBA employers that have not adopted a reasonable local rule regarding decertification, permits a decertification petition any time after an MOU expires and before a successor MOU takes effect. However, Madera held the MMBA does not require local rules to permit a decertification petition immediately upon MOU expiration, provided that the rule allows a reasonable and equitable opportunity to file decertification petitions when no MOU is in effect. (City of Madera (2016) PERB Decision No. 2506-M, p. 9; cf. County of Ventura (2018) PERB Decision No. 2600, pp. 44-45 [employer’s local rule violates the MMBA if it establishes certain dates in a calendar year when a union can file a petition to represent unrepresented employees].) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 1 | 06/09/21 |
| 2771M |
City of Long Beach
1302.04000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; Bar To
The MMBA does not contain a “contract bar,” viz., a rule limiting new recognition or decertification petitions while an MOU is in effect. (City of San Rafael (2004) PERB Decision No. 1698-M, p. 2, fn. 2.) The absence of such statutory language provides each MMBA employer some discretion to find a reasonable balance between employees’ right of free association and the need for stable labor relations. (Id. at pp. 2-3, citing Service Employees Internat. Union v. City of Santa Barbara (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 459.) However, an MMBA employer’s local rules may not undercut or frustrate the MMBA’s policies and purposes. (International Federation of Prof. & Technical Engineers v. City & County of San Francisco (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1300, 1306; Huntington Beach Police Officers’ Assn. v. City of Huntington Beach (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 492, 500-502.) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 1 | 06/09/21 |
| A470E |
Children of Promise Preparatory Academy
1302.04000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; Bar To
Where a blocking charge proves an employer engaged in unlawful conduct likely to affect a decertification election, the employer may present facts to overcome the likelihood that its unlawful conduct has affected voter choice. (p. 6.) Employee declarations, submitted by the employer, attesting to conditions as they existed when they filed the decertification petition did not provide any evidence that present conditions are now neutral as required for a fair election. (pp. 3-4, 6.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 82 | 11/29/18 |
| A470E |
Children of Promise Preparatory Academy
1302.04000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; Bar To
Where there is a final determination that the employer engaged in misconduct interfering with a representative’s ability to effectively represent bargaining unit employees (pp. 2-3), OGC may subsequently rely on the determination to find that the employer’s unlawful conduct would likely affect a decertification election and offer the employer an opportunity to show that any adverse effects of that conduct on employee free choice no longer exists, thereby permitting an election. (p. 5.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 82 | 11/29/18 |
| A470E |
Children of Promise Preparatory Academy
1302.04000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; Bar To
PERB may stay a decertification election to decide a party’s pending blocking charge, i.e. whether the employees’ dissatisfaction with their representative is in all likelihood attributable to the employer’s unfair practices rather than the representative’s failure to respond to and serve the needs of the employees it represents. (pp. 2-3, fn. 2.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 82 | 11/29/18 |
| A443E |
Morgan Hill Unified School District
1302.04000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; Bar To
(The only grounds on which decertification petitions may be dismissed prior to an election are those enumerated in PERB Regulations 32770 (30 percent proof of support) and 32776 (representation bar and contract bar).) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 107 | 12/13/16 |
| A465M |
San Diego Metropolitan Transit System * * * PUC TRANSIT CASE. PERB DECISION NUMBER CONTAINS INCORRECT LETTERING, AS CASE DID NOT ARISE UNDER MMBA * * *
1302.04000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; Bar To
Private sector law “shall apply” in deciding representation matters under the transit district acts (PERB Regulation 93080), though a transit district act takes precedence over federal law when there is a conflict. Under Crompton Company (1982) 260 NLRB 417, 418, a one-month CBA extension is not long enough to create a contract bar, because it is not long enough to create a new open window. Under Deluxe Metal Furniture Co. (1958) 121 NLRB 995, 999, fn 6, the contract bars applies only if both the contract ratification date and the contract’s effective date both precede the filing date of a petition to decertify or replace the incumbent union. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 11 | 06/12/18 |
| 2318M |
County of Amador
1302.04000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; Bar To
When the provision of the employer’s employment relations policy (ERP) that conflicts with MMBA section 3507 is excised, leaving the ERP with no regulation establishing a certification bar as required by MMBA section 3507 and no rule dictating when decertification petitions can be filed, PERB may substitute its Regulation 61200, Bar to Conducting Election, which contains both the contract bar and certification bar doctrine, as well as a filing “window period” if there is an MOU in effect with a term of three years or less. more or view all topics or full text. |
38 | 23 | 07/12/13 |
| A327M |
City of Carson
1302.04000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; Bar To
The City’s calculation of an “open period” based on a petitioning union’s MOU rather than on the incumbent union’s MOU is not reasonable because it does not meet an objective of the contract bar doctrine to establish stability in employer/employee relations. more or view all topics or full text. |
27 | 88 | 06/20/03 |
| A280E |
Alum Rock Union Elementary School District
1302.04000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; Bar To
The Board is protective of employees' freedom to express their desires on union representation. However, this policy is restricted by the need for stability in employer-employee relations (Bassett USD, pp. 3-4); In EERA section 3544.7(b)(1), the Legislature balanced these competing interests by identifying a very specific period of time during which a decertification petition may be filed if there is a collective bargaining agreement in effect; accordingly, when PERB considers a decertification petition, it strictly enforces the window period since the window period provided by EERA section 3544.7(b) is "unequivocally defined;" p. 6. Where petitioner filed for one unit and outside window period corrected the petition to file for 2 units, second petition was untimely; pp. 6-7. untimely; pp. 6-7. more or view all topics or full text. |
21 | 28023 | 12/06/96 |
| A261E |
Capistrano Unified School District
1302.04000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; Bar To
In deciding contract bar disputes, the Board has found that federal precedent under the NLRA provides significant guidance; p. 9. In developing its contract bar rules, the Board, like the NLRB, seeks a balance between the goal of fostering labor relations stability and the right of employees to freely choose their representative; p. 13. Where the parties have made ratification a condition precedent to the effectiveness of the contract and ratification occurs, that ratification activates a contract bar to the filing of a decertification petition, regardless of whether the agreement had been signed by the parties prior to ratification. By this rule, the Board does not alter its prior adoption of the signature requirement in cases where ratification is not a condition precedent to the effectiveness of a contract by express contractual provision; p. 14. Not only must an agreement be ratified, where required by express effectiveness of a contract by express contractual provision; p. 14. Not only must an agreement be ratified, where required by express deemed sufficient to stabilize the bargaining relationship; it will not constitute a bar if it is limited to wages only, or to one or several provisions not deemed substantial; p. 14. more or view all topics or full text. |
18 | 25147 | 10/12/94 |
| A097E |
Downey Unified School District
1302.04000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; Bar To
Appeal of finding that decertification petition was timely filed and not barred denied where new contract between the employer and the exclusive representative had not been ratified so as to activate its provisions, as required by ground rules agreed to by the parties at the time of the filing of the decertification petition; p. 3. more or view all topics or full text. |
4 | 11161 | 09/10/80 |
| A096E |
Hayward Unified School District
1302.04000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; Bar To
Appeal of order directing decertification election denied where, during the term of an existing contract, the parties execute a new contract which contains an expiration date later than that of the first contract; new contract is premature and will not act as a bar to a decertification election; p. 4, dismissal letter. Stay of decertification election denied where, during the term of an existing contract, the parties executed a new contract which contains an expiration date later than that of the first contract, and all unit members were not aware of the ramifications of the change in the window period; p. 3, dismissal letter. Purpose of the rule that premature contract will not act as a bar to a decertification election is to prevent manipulation of the window period for the filing of a decertification petition; p. 4. period for the filing of a decertification petition; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text. |
4 | 11140 | 06/10/80 |
| A075E |
San Ramon Valley Unified School District
1302.04000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; Bar To
Board consents to vacating a blocking order at the request of the union which originally requested the block. more or view all topics or full text. |
3 | 10128 | 10/04/79 |
| A066E |
Jefferson School District
1302.04000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; Bar To
PERB will block elections where a District's alleged unlawful conduct will so affect the election process as to prevent the employees from freely selecting their exclusive representative. The rule will not be applied mechanically. more or view all topics or full text. |
3 | 10087 | 06/29/79 |
| A050E |
Taft Union High School District
1302.04000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; Bar To
The certification and contract bars are not mutually exclusive. The two bars may operate in tandem to consume the 29-day statutory window period near the end of an existing contract. The purpose of the recognition, certification and contract bars is to promote an environment in which a rapport between the exclusive representative and the employer can develop free from the uncertainty and disruption of rival organizational activities. It is only during the first year of a new exclusive representative's tenure that these bars can overlap to freeze out an attempted decertification. more or view all topics or full text. |
3 | 10000 | 12/08/78 |
| 1082E |
San Juan Unified School District
1302.04000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; Bar To
A written agreement that exceeds 36 months does not constitute a contract bar to representation petitions; p. 6. more or view all topics or full text. |
19 | 26039 | 01/18/95 |
| 0960E |
Manton Joint Union Elementary School District
1302.04000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; Bar To
An election should continue to be stayed only if the employees' dissatisfaction with their representative is in all likelihood attributable to the employer's unfair practices rather than to the exclusive representative's failure to respond to and serve the needs of the employees it represents; p. 4. In order to preserve the employees' free choice in the matter of representation, the Board may delay a representation election when there is a substantial risk that its outcome will be affected by conduct that is alleged to be an unfair practice when that charge is still pending before the Board; p. 5. Union failed to establish what benefit would accrue to the employees by requiring them to wait a full year following resolution of the unfair practice charge to vote in the decertification election contrary to Board policy to encourage prompt resolution of unfair practice charge to vote in the decertification election contrary to Board policy to encourage prompt resolution of more or view all topics or full text. |
17 | 24003 | 11/23/92 |
| 0476E |
San Francisco Unified School District
1302.04000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION; Bar To
Decertificated petition barred by written 4 month extension of existing contract, premature extension doctrine not applicable as extension not entered into until window period expired; pp. 3-8. more or view all topics or full text. |
9 | 16053 | 12/31/84 |